Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Life Technologies Sues Promega for Declaratory Judgments Relating to Cell Line Authentication Kits

Last February, I reported that a district court had ordered Life
Technologies to pay $52 million in damages to Promega, based on a finding that Life’s
AmpFLSTR PCR kits infringe multiple Promega patents. These kits use single tandem repeat
(STR) technology to produce genetic fingerprints, useful in a variety of
applications, such as forensics and paternity testing.

In September, the court vacated the award of damages,
finding that as a matter of law Promega had failed to present sufficient
evidence proving that infringing products were made or sold in the United
States, or imported into the United States (as summarized here). The decision is currently on appeal to the
Federal Circuit.

Yesterday, Life Technologies filed two declaratory judgment
lawsuits seeking a ruling that the company will not be liable for
infringing the same Promega patents based on the launch of a new line of Life
Technologies product, which will be sold under the trade name AuthentiFiler.According to the complaints, AuthentiFiler
employs STR technology to authenticate/identify the origin of cell lines, providing important validation of cell lines used
in biotechnology processes.

One of the lawsuits, filed in the Southern District of
California, seeks a declaration that US Patent Numbers 5,843,660; 6,221,598;
6,479,235; and 7,008,771 are not infringed by AuthentiFiler. These are patents
that were asserted in the AmpFLSTR lawsuit. According to the complaint, the AuthentiFiler
products utilize a different set of STR loci than used in the AmpFLSTR
products, and these loci "do not overlap with those required by the claims of the
Patents-in-Suit.”

The second lawsuit was filed in the Central District of
California, and involves another patent asserted in the AmpFLSTR litigation, Re37,984.According to the complaint, this patent was
exclusively licensed by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft to a company called
Research Genetics pursuant to a 1993 license agreement. In 1996, Research
Genetics granted Promega exclusive and nonexclusive rights under the patent in
certain fields. According to the complaint, Research Genetics retained rights
under the patent in other fields, including uses in cell line authentication/identification. Research Genetics was subsequently acquired by Life Technologies, and Life
Technologies alleges that under the 1996 agreement the company retains the
right to use the patented technology in the AuthentiFiler products. Promega
evidently disputes this interpretation of the import of the license agreement.

In this second lawsuit, Life Technologies is asking the
court to declare that Promega must agree to arbitrate the licensing dispute (pursuant
to an arbitration clause in the agreement), and also for a declaration that,
pursuant to the 1996 agreement, Life Technologies is licensed under the ‘984
patent to commercialize products for use in authentication/identification of
cell lines, including the AuthentiFiler system.

About Me

I am a law professor at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. My primary research interests lie at the intersection of biotechnology and intellectual property. This blog provides analysis and commentary on recent developments relevant to this area of the law.